NAVINCHANDRA RAMESHCHANDRA PANDYA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition has prayed for the appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 31.7.2000 at AnnexureA passed by the Municipality, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated and it is prayed by the petitioner to reinstate him with full backwages and continuity in service.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that as per the petitioner he was appointed as clerk with the then Ghatlodia Municipality in the year 1998. Thereafter on 29.12.1998 the District Collector directed the Municipality to take appropriate action for relieving the petitioner from service on the ground that proper procedure as required under the law was not followed. Apprehending the termination the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.103 of 1999 before this Court and this Court had initially stayed the operation of the communication addressed to the Municipality. Ultimately in the said petition this Court found that the action on the part of the Collector could not be said to be illegal, but the Court did record the statement of the Municipality that the termination shall not be effected without following the due procedure of law and the petition was dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal No.1318 of 1999 against the order of the learned Single Judge but no stay was granted. Resultantly the Collector proceeded further under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and passed the order directing the Municipality to take appropriate steps for termination of the services of the petitioner. Based on the order of the District Collector under Section 258 of the Act the Municipality passed the impugned order at Annexure-A, whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. In the meantime, in the Letters Patent Appeal, when it was noticed by the Court that the services were already terminated, the Court found that such will be an independent cause to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner may challenge the said action before the appropriate forum and with the said observation the appeal was disposed of. Under the circumstances the present petition before this Court.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Shivang Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP for the respondent No.1.